The Doctrine of Separation of Powers: Functional Counterparts, British Fusion & Global Governance.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Description This work develops a contemporary doctrine of separation of powers reframed as a functional and resilience-based constitutional system. It argues that classical tripartite separation is insufficient to address modern systemic risks such as welfare failure, economic fragility, privatisation of essential services, environmental degradation, and global interdependence. The article introduces two constitutional counterparts within The Liberty System: the People’s counterpart, requiring enforceable guarantees of welfare, dignity, and civil liberties, and the Economic counterpart, requiring fiscal solvency, sustainability, and long-term economic stability. Rather than relying primarily on litigation, the framework emphasises institutional design, decentralised accountability through parish-level governance, and judicial review as a stabilising mechanism. Drawing on comparative constitutional models (including the UK, EU, South Africa, Canada, India, and the United States), the work addresses the risks of fused powers, privatisation, and executive dominance, and proposes buy-back sovereignty as a resilience option. The paper further situates separation of powers within a global governance context, outlining readiness for data-driven and quantum-enabled accountability while remaining grounded in civil liberties traditions rooted in the Magna Carta. The doctrine is presented as a scalable constitutional framework capable of operating across local, national, and global governance systems, integrating human, animal, and environmental protection with economic sustainability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".